ABSTRACT
The Columbus Caravels Project is a multi-phase research program designed to locate and excavate from St. Ann’s Bay, Jamaica the remains of Columbus’ last two ships, Capitana and Santiago de Palos. After an enforced exile of a year and five days, Columbus and his marooned crew were finally rescued on 29 June 1504. They departed for Hispaniola and Spain, leaving behind two of the oldest recorded shipwrecks in the Western Hemisphere, and the earliest European site in Jamaica. The Caravel Project was organized in 1982 by the Institute for Nautical Archaeology (INA) in conjunction with the Institute of Jamaica. The Mobius Society joined in the search during the summer field season of 1985. This report presents only that phase of the work involving the use of Remote Viewing data subjected to field confirmation, after employing a specialized analysis developed by Mobius for use in archaeological field searches. There were two subsequent survey’s of the Bay, and these are also addressed in the discussion section.
Location: Within a Search Area of 4.35 sq. mile during three previous seasons prior to Mobius’ investigation by magnetometer, radar, and side-scan sonar, as well as coring and caisson excavations under water and on land had produced materials from 18th-century English plantation activities, including the remains of two abandoned vessels. Remote Viewing, using a previously reported technique and prior to, and after the Mobius teams coming to Jamaica selected, and then confirmed on-site, an area of 1041 feet x 541 feet = 0.02 sq. miles as the area where finds would be made. The discovery of artifact and ship remains were made within the Remote Viewing predicted areas, and nowhere else, although substantial areas outside of the Remote Viewing locations were searched. As described and located by the Remote Viewers, previously unknown shipwreck was found in Consensus Area I. One viewer also provided a much smaller location site which, on the basis of initial success in Consensus Area I, was also pursued, with good results. Two other small single viewer sites were unproductive supporting the research premise that consensually predicted locations are more likely to be productive. A second Consensus Area because of time and sea conditions was not searched. Visual diver inspection was the confirming source of each location prediction. No excavation was carried out, although Remote Viewing suggested that ship remains were covered by several feet of overburden. Discoveries by subsequent expeditions under different direction made such discoveries. To calculate the probability of selecting these locations by chance within the Search Area, consider the finds reported as a cell in a grid of 217 similar cells. The probability of finding this one = p0.0046, which strongly suggests that chance is not an explanation for the locations. The much smaller location of material on the north side of the bay’s outer reef, as predicted by one Remote Viewer would, correspondingly, be even more improbable. Some of these remains are from unidentified ships of a period later than the Columbus wrecks, but much of the debris is unidentified, even as to period. Ultimately, for non-parapyschological reasons, identification of Capitana and Santiago de Palos may never be achieved because there may not be enough to answer in an absolute way the question of where the caravels are located.
Description and Reconstruction: Remote Viewing in addition to providing location, described the underwater and surface geography of the area to be searched, as well as providing descriptive and reconstructive data on the objects that would be found there. Overall 1012 concepts concerning Remote Viewing locations, descriptions, and reconstructions were presented during individual interviews by eight Remote Viewers, whose psychological profiles are defined by the PAS system, with the Saunders correction. An evaluation of the accuracy of Remote Viewing data, was carried out by the INA Archaeological Field Director, based on archaeological, geological, and electronic remote sensing field surveys and historical analysis. It is presented with each concept evaluated on a four point scale: “Correct,” “Partially Correct,” “Incorrect,” and “Not Evaluable.” Forty five per cent (45%) of the concepts received other than “Not Evaluable.” These concepts are arranged within a category outline, in accordance with the described methodology. This study has ten major subsets of information developed from the Remote Viewing interviews. The headings and archaeologically useful “hit” rates, comprised of a combination of “Correct” and “Partially Correct”, are: Remains, 54 per cent; Bottom Features, 80 per cent; Overburden, 90 per cent; Events Subsequent to Abandoning Ships, 62 per cent; Position of Ship Remains, 81 per cent; Differentiation of Two Ships, 60 per cent; Geology, 95 per cent; Roger Smith Archaeologist, 78 per cent; Comments re: Project, 53 per cent; Other & Miscellaneous, 76 per cent.
© copyright 1986 and 2001 by Stephan A. Schwartz, Randall J. De Mattei, and Roger C. Smith
